Re: [asa] Creation Care

Reason, wisdom, experience, common sense, faith, and revelation, in varying
proportions as the circumstances dicate, is the basis on which we need to
evaluate truth claims and make decisions. A recapture of the classicle virtue of
phronesis and the Biblical virtue of wisdom is what we need. The last thing we
need is to abrogate our duty to think for ourselves to some supposedly
authoritative community. Most people are not as stupid as other people think they
are.

Since this is a matter that would become that of public policy, it is
certainly
something that needs to be explained clearly enough that most of the
people with a high school education can understand what is being discussed
at some reasonable level.

On the other hand, if they don't want to listen, then what?

Also, whereas it is part of the duty of a scientist/expert in
a field to explain the concepts clearly, the tendency for the layman
to expect some polished AV show in executive summary form is
more than a small inconvenience for people devoted to doing their
job as scientists. When you have only 5 minute to explain years
of careful, detailed research, a polished straight to the point
performance is more than a small Herculean accomplishment.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne

> Why must there be a single person or single community that serves as
> arbiter? That approach always leads to tyranny.
>
> Reason, wisdom, experience, common sense, faith, and revelation, in varying
> proportions as the circumstances dicate, is the basis on which we need to
> evaluate truth claims and make decisions. A recapture of the classicle virtue
> of phronesis and the Biblical virtue of wisdom is what we need. The last
> thing we need is to abrogate our duty to think for ourselves to some supposedly
> authoritative community. Most people are not as stupid as other people think
> they are.
>
> It seems to me that you're coming dangerously close to the zeitgeist that
> takes "the literature" as a sort of secular scripture and the scientific
> community as a sort of secular priesthood. Of course practical wisdom relies on
> the recommendations of trained experts and recognizes the motives of the
> experts' political critics -- but it never, never sloughs off the duty to think
> carefully and weigh everything in the balances simply because of expert
> authority. Even beyond the simple and obvious truth that all human knowledge is
> historically and socially situated, we as Christians know in particular the every
> temporal social structure, every community, scientific, ecclesiastical,
> political, familial whatever, is deeply corrupted by sin and therefore cannot be
> authoritative in an ultimate sense. To put it in somewhat Kuyperian terms,
> each of these communities have a certain type of authority and certain roles
> within their given spheres, as well as certain relationships to each other;
> none of them is a meta-authority.
>
> String theory is not consensus in the sense of being tested experimentally
> and found to be consistent.
>
> And string theorists would say that their models are sound and elegant, and
> that if you don't have the many years of training required to really
> understand them, you shouldn't question them. See, the authority game gets pecked
> away bit by bit, and the response always is, "well that community of science
> doesn't really have it's act together, but this one does." But then that
> community of science says, "who are you to say we don't have our act together?"
> Who, then, is the arbiter of which community of science gets to be the
> arbiter?
>
> Allowing the shrill voices of critics who have no competing models, who have
> no in-depth understanding of the field, to prevent action is also
> unacceptable.
>
> Perhaps, but censoring criticism is equally unacceptable. If the critics
> really have no in-depth understanding of the field, let the mainstream
> voices demonstrate that through facts and argument. If that can't be
> demonstrated through facts and argument, maybe the critics know more than the
> mainstream thinks.
>
> As to "no competing models" -- that line, IMHO, though, is a canard when it
> comes to policy making. If a model is advanced the demands very costly
> social action, criticism of the model can be very valuable even if the critic has
> no competing model. Simply avoiding the costs of the faulty mainstream model
> would be a good thing.
>
> Having said all this, let me reiterate: I personally think global warming
> is a real problem that is substantially caused by human actions, and that some
> political action is necessary. I am not convinced that anyone can say the
> problem will be catastrophic in any given time frame, however. But I am most
> sure that censoring debate and arguing from authority is a bad precedent to
> set, particularly if we want to approach the science-policy nexus from a
> thoroughly Christian perspective.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 26 07:07:40 2007